The Eagles went undefeated over the weekend and now have a two-game winning streak, due much to the defensive contribution of newly acquired goaltender Marco Emond.

After a disappointing loss in the season opener on Oct. 20, the Eagles bounced back to beat the New Mexico Scorpions 6-3 on Saturday night. Emond played well, giving up only three goals on 35 shots. All three goals given up were on New Mexico power plays.

The Eagles had an offensive explosion, as captain Greg Pankewicz and right wing Scott Polaski both had two-goal games. Defenseman Aaron Schneekloth and center Riley Nelson also contributed a goal.

“I had a conversation with the coaches before the game and they thought I needed to get to the net more,” Polaski said. “I put it into my game plan. I skated to the net more and was just at the right place at the right time.”

The Eagles were also impressive on Friday night, as they defeated the Wichita Thunder 5-1. Emond played well again, giving up only one goal on 21 shots.

The offense continued to roll scoring five goals by five different players including Konrad Reeder, Chris Hartsburg, Brad Wiliamson, Eric Adams and Pankewitcz.

Eagles Head Coach Chris Stewart attributed the team’s weekend success to the presence of Emond.

“Our first game we had no goaltending, and that was costly. For the most part, he calms our team down and that helps,” Stewart said.

Stewart also said the team’s penalty kill was a big reason his team won. The Eagles gave up only four goals on 24 power play opportunities.

“It is a big part of the game today, as many penalties as are called,” Stewart said. “Penalty killing is as important as power plays. Our special teams played very well.”

Emond, a nine-year veteran, replaced game-one starter Stephan Siwiec. The Eagles released the rookie after he gave up four goals in the first period of the team’s first regular season game.

Emond is happy to be with a team like the Eagles.

“I fit very well,” Edmond said. “It is good to be back with a team that cares about winning. It brings out the best in me.”

Polaski thinks that things are starting to go the Eagles’ way due to their hard work.

“In the preseason and our first game, the work was there, but things just weren’t going our way,” Polaski said. “When you keep trying and working hard you will get those chances and the puck will start to bounce your way.”

There are lots of reasons why we’re supporting Bill Ritter for governor.

His years as Denver district attorney show he’s tough on crime, despite the repeated attacks by his opponent, Republican Bob Beauprez.

Also, we believe him when he promises he won’t make his personal beliefs against abortion into a legislative issue.

And hey, he’s a fellow Ram. Having one of us in the governor’s mansion can’t hurt.

But really, these and several issues aside, he sealed the support of the Collegian editorial board when he supported Referendum C, the measure on last November’s ballot that helped avoid massive tuition increases to the state’s university students.

By various estimates, tuition could have shot up more than 30 percent at CSU.

Meanwhile, Beauprez opposed Referendum C.

And now the conservative congressman has a plan to boost Colorado universities’ coffers.

He wants to allow universities to increase tuition without limits.

“The reason that I think that makes some degree of sense is it’s providing our universities with flexibility to manage the expense side,” the candidate told the Collegian.

He’s essentially comparing higher education to running a business. But in business, there are always people who get the short end of the stick.

As much as Colorado is heading toward that direction, it shouldn’t be that way.

So we’re endorsing a candidate who has been committed to higher education and, we believe, will remain committed to it.

Aren’t exactly a Democrat or Republican? Think the government should stay out of people’s lives in economic and social issues? Sick of choosing between the lesser of two evils for political office? Then the Libertarian Party may be for you!

The Libertarian Party is a political third party that falls somewhere in between Republican and Democrat ideologies. Its policy on social issues is liberal, while its economic stance is conservative.

Basically, the Libertarian platform is as follows: “We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.” (Taken from the Libertarian home page, www.lp.org.)

This can basically be summed up as: Do whatever you want, but don’t harm anyone else.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I think the government has absolutely no business deciding how I should run my life, and the same goes for how other people choose to run their lives.

What it comes down to, I suppose, is that I and other Libertarians think people are intelligent enough to live their own lives without the government telling us what to do.

For example, the government currently tells us what to do with our money. Programs like Social Security assume that we aren’t smart enough to save and spend our money and that the government should hold onto the money for us.

Ironically, the government has proven it is, in fact, the inept one when it comes to finances, as we are running a massive budget deficit and Social Security is on the fringe of bankruptcy. Libertarians are opposed to Social Security and welfare programs and would cut taxes allowing us to spend our money as we see fit.

The government also interferes by telling us what to do with our bodies. Laws like marijuana prohibition prove politicians believe they know better than we do about what we should put in our own bodies. Moreover, the war on drugs is costing taxpayers exorbitant sums of money, with few observable results. Libertarians would end the war on drugs and allow us to do what we want with our own bodies.

If you find yourself agreeing with any of these issues, you just may be a Libertarian, or if you are simply intrigued by any of these ideas that I have briefly covered, more information can be obtained by contacting the Libertarian Party at CSU at www.LPCSU.org.

There are many Libertarians running for various positions this election, and I strongly urge you to consider voting for the party of smaller government, fewer taxes and more freedom.

Andy Nicewicz is a senior political science major. His column appears every Monday in the Collegian. Replies and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.

Never before had a Lubick-led squad lost by one point, been shut out by Wyoming or gave up an 18-point second half lead.

With all these new and creative ways of losing, fans and students have started to call for changes within the football team, in both style of coaching and play.

But the three straight losses don’t mean this team is bad or that the coaching needs sweeping changes. Three straight losses for a program of CSU’s caliber does, however, mean that smart and civil evaluations should be done.

The running game

After eight games, CSU’s rushing offense still hasn’t had a single 100-yard rusher. The main reason for this has been for the incredible amount of injuries suffered by the Rams this season.

Seven of the Rams’ top eight offensive linemen have missed at least one game with an injury. And don’t forget that Kyle Bell has been sidelined for the entire season with a knee injury.

Now even with an offensive line that has still yet to gel, the running back production does not seem to be where it should be. Gartrell Johnson has struggled to get anything going in his seven starts. Nnamdi Ohaeri made his first start of the season against the Lobos over the weekend.

Despite Ohaeri’s numbers in his first start (just 24 yards), he is the back who should start the remainder of games for the Rams. Ohaeri is shiftier and harder to bring down than Johnson has been.

The play calling

The term “bubble screen” has become a profanity in most CSU fans’ vocabularies. While the bubble screen is an effective tool to spread out a defense, it lacks any teeth if the defense isn’t worried about stopping a running game.

Offensive coordinator Dan Hammerschmidt’s ability as a play-caller has been questioned, but not many people have answers to what other plays CSU could run in their place. This season’s lack of offensive production should not be blamed on the play calling because good teams should be able to win games no matter who is calling the plays.

The special teams

Even in a day when kicker Jason Smith stunned Hughes Stadium with a 49-yard field goal, the kicking game was still to blame for the loss to New Mexico. Punter/holder Jimmie Kaylor dropped the snap on an extra point attempt and that one missed point turned out to be the difference.

Smith’s numbers on the year have been less than desirable (four for 10 on field goals), however he is CSU’s best option in the kicking department. His 49-yarder proved that Smith can still kick the ball well.

Another part of the special teams that has been lacking is the return game. Alex Square was lined up at kick returner Saturday, and look for him to stay next to Damon Morton for the rest of the season. This combo gives the Rams one of the fastest returner duos in the conference.

Sometimes teams just get beat. And while a lot of little things could change, mass and large changes are unnecessary for a team that is just six more points away from having six wins.

Sports editor Mike Donovan can be reached at sports@collegian.com. The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the individual author and not necessarily those of the Collegian.

Editor’s note: This letter was sent last week, before the Collegian published today’s feature on Bob Beauprez.

Like any typical day, I like to enjoy a good read before class, and my choice is always the Collegian. Not just for the Sudoku puzzle or to read Ram Talk hoping to get a new Chuck Norris joke, but I more often than not read the Collegian front to back and save those wonderful puzzles for class itself.

But lately I have become angry with the paper. Everything is Bill

Ritter this, Bill Ritter that, one can’t but wonder: Is our paper turning into Fox News (a major one-sided news station) or is my imagination running rampant? So, I find myself neither a Democrat nor a Republican but have voted both Democrat and Republican in the past.

I am currently in John Straayer’s state and local government class and was there to witness Bill Ritter speak to our class. Not many people know that a week before this visit from Ritter, Republican candidate Bob Beauprez was also there to speak to the class. Not many people knew because Beauprez did not get the coverage by the Collegian that Bill Ritter received.

I thought I was going crazy so I asked Henry Howard, a business major here at CSU, what he thought. He said he not only does the puzzle, but is an avid reader of the Collegian articles as well. “I have not read or noticed anything on Bob Beauprez in this week’s or prior weeks’ papers, but have read an awful lot on Bill Ritter,” Howard said.

Also, when asked if he knew that Beuaprez came to CSU a week ago he responded, “I had no idea that he came.”

So here is my dilemma: For many students, the Collegian is their only news source. If the Collegian chooses to highlight one candidate and none of the other candidates, even third-party candidates, how are the students supposed to hear both sides of the issues?

It’s not just Bill Ritter, but even third party candidate, Paul Fiorino, got more press than the others. If Ryan Chapman was still writing his Wednesday column, I know he would have said something about this so I wouldn’t have to. I guess for the Collegian to recognize you, you had to have gone here (Ritter) or taught here (Fiorino) to be paper-worthy.

We live in a world that is striving toward acceptance of all, freedom and respect of individual rights. We’re trying to globalize the world with these ideas and unite as one.

A recent piece in the Collegian by Ryan Speaker attempted to stress on the importance of this; however, instead, it did the exact opposite.

Speaker contradicts himself in his Wednesday column, first in saying that the burqa (face covering) is a form of female oppression, and then calls it “women separating themselves from the world.”

In fact, it is neither. Wearing a burqa is not required by Islam; it is done by some women out of piousness for our traditional beliefs. And as someone who has lived amongst these women I can confirm that it does not, in any way, create divisions in a community. Accepting people and respecting them regardless is the way to improve relations, not the opposite of that.

I found Ryan’s comment “Why come to the West and maintain the burqa?” particularly offensive. He seems to be stating that people are welcome in the West based upon their dress. If that does not constitute as “separating people” then I don’t know what does.

Ryan spoke of women’s rights but fails to see that giving women a choice to practice their religion as they see fit is also a part of women’s rights.

He mentioned the importance of “eye contact in this culture.” He was right, but that is true for certain cultures only. In Japan it is considered disrespectful to look someone in the eyes. Should we expect all peoples who come to the West to abandon their beliefs just because we fail to agree with them?

Finally, religious expression is not for people to “tolerate” it is to be respected, as are all individuals and their beliefs.

In response to Mr. Dudley’s article on dating, I am not going to even attempt to tackle the way with which the article was printed grammatically. I’m a science major. Sad that I am offended by it.

First off. I must commend you on your use of such an extensive vocabulary. Coitus! Well done, sir! No wander why people think chivalry is dead! The use of a term that many people must look up to find its true meaning completely masks the candor of you speech. Well done! With such extensive vocabulary, I would think you could appease a high school girl looking for love in all the wrong places!

Coitus (or intercourse, whichever you prefer), is not the goal of chivalry. Chivalry (associated with the “nice guy analogy according to Mr. Dudley) asks nothing in return for acts of virtuosity. Chivalry serves and ends it with the act. It is true and good. Anyone that says it is dead is a person that serves with ulterior motives. Looking for a thank you is enough to deem selfish when speaking of chivalry. Don’t pretend to know the nature of the legacy by saying it is dead and gone. “Managed to sound like a complete jerk” completely sums it up. Men, as a whole, look for things like Mr. Dudley. “Coitus” is what men look for. Point being: men like this give us a terrible name, and I stand against it. Chivalry and proper, appreciative treatment exists in the male race, though rare it may seem. Some men actually live by a code of excellence in their lives. I urge all to see this in the few that remain. My only “hesitance” is the women who continually put up with and support those that do not do justice to what can be.

I know many times the Collegian has received criticism for not having this story or that story. Or there have been times you have been criticized for having a certain story in the paper. I wanted to take the time and say “thank you.”

Thank you for having articles in the Collegian about the Green Machine. The Student Alumni Connection is on a quest to improve the attendance at our athletic events. It may not be easy, but it is possible!

Having articles remind students about the new section is much appreciated. Thank you to all the students who attended the volleyball game. We may have not broken the record, but our rivals up north felt our presence. To all the staff and volunteers at the Collegian, THANK YOU.

As a kid, I sometimes started thinking about what I wanted to be for Halloween as soon as all my candy reserves were gone in mid-November. I still love campy Halloween movies, dressing up, trick-or-treating and bite-sized candies.

But I wasn’t the only person in my family who shared an irrepressible enthusiasm for the most macabre day of the year. One fond memory of Halloween from my childhood is when my dad built a full-out haunted house for me and my friends.in the basement of the family home. No joke.

In 1984, my parents turned heads at a Halloween party as “Ambassador Zog” (a costume which featured full silver skin and purple robes) and a very pregnant clown. Nine hours later, the clown slimmed down and I joined the family.

That’s right; my birthday is the day after Halloween.

So maybe I’m a little biased on the topic, but with good reason.

The excitement I feel surrounding Halloween speaks to something greater about the holiday, something universal for a lot of my fellow enthusiasts: The fun of pretending.

A few years ago, the woman I was dating at the time selected an unexpectedly revealing costume for Halloween. At first I couldn’t figure it out. This was a woman who preferred fairly conservative attire, under normal circumstances.

Then it hit me. Halloween transcends normal standards of behavior, as well as some public nudity laws. The greatest appeal of Halloween, outside of the delicious candy, is the innocence of “acting out.”

When October 31st comes around, social inhibitions vanish. Roles not normally acceptable become permissible, if only for a night.

An acquaintance of mine once went as Osama bin Laden, with a rocket protruding from his posterior for good measure. Everyone has friends who opt for the risqu/ costumes, and I don’t know how many of my buddies choose to go in drag.

Halloween is the ideal time for experimentation of all sorts.

As kids, the most obvious experiment in role playing was to be something that only adults are only allowed to be in the real world. I had a sweet pilot jumpsuit one year, complete with gold helmet and army boots.

As young adults, that experimentation may be with our gender or the social role that we normally play. I don’t think any of us would be overly surprised to see a “macho” man parading in a tutu, come Halloween.

The day after Halloween, your normally buttoned-up female friend who was out all night in a tight bodice and heels will not be judged adversely. The “macho” man, in tutu the night before, will not have a different sexual preference.

Halloween is appealing for adults for the same reason many people find Las Vegas, Sturgis and Cancun appealing: you can play bad, look strange or behave startlingly different from your daily life without the usual negative connotations or consequences.

Shakespeare wrote: “All the world’s a stage.”

But perhaps Billy, the murderous boyfriend in the horror classic “Scream” might have put it better: “It’s all one big movie.”

Happy Halloween!

Drew Haugen is a senior international studies major. His column appears every Monday in the Collegian. He will appear as a metallic yet lovable robot, Awesom-O 3000, for Halloween. Replies and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.